125 PDF Books on ANGELS & Angelology to Download

Only $5.00 -  You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your email for the download. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

For a list of all of my books on disks click here - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well.

Contents:

The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology by John Fleming 1879

Sketches in Angelology, article in Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review 1843

Paganism and Christianity by James A Farrer 1891 (Still less did Catholicism introduce any change into the Pagan theory of secondary or subordinate divine agencies. Only a change of diction ensued, the word angels or messengers, which had long been in use as a synonym for the gods, coming at last to supersede the latter term altogether. The saints and martyrs displaced the gods and heroes, but the new angel-worship differed to no appreciable degree, theoretically or practically, from the old polytheism it supplanted.)

Angelic Beings - their nature and ministry by Charles D Bell 1875

The Holy Angels by Richard O'Kennedy 1887

The Demi-Gods by James Stephens 1921

The Wonderful Visit by HG Wells 1895

The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France 1914

A Book of Angels by P.L. 1906

Watching Spirits by EF Ellet 1851

Memoirs of a Guardian Angel by G Chardon 1871

Thoughts on the cherubimical mystery - An attempt to prove that the cherubims were emblems of salvation by the blood of Jesus by James Relly 1808

Kerubim in Semitic religion and art by FN Lindsay 1912

Angels Messages through Mrs. Ellen E. Ward, as a Medium 1875

The Stars and the Angels 1860

The Angels, by a Bible Student 1875

Sacred and Legendary Art, volume 1 by Mrs Jameson 1881

Sacred and Legendary Art, volume 2 by Mrs Jameson 1881

Notes on the Angels, based on the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor)

Demonic possession in the New Testament by William Alexander 1902

A View of the Scripture revelations respecting Good and Evil Angels by Richard Whateley 1856

INTERMEDIARIES IN JEWISH THEOLOGY (Metatron) article in The Harvard theological Review 1922

Foot-prints of Angels in Fields of Revelation by EA Stockman 1890

Angelology - REMARKS AND REFLECTIONS TOUCHING THE AGENCY AND MINISTRATION OF HOLY ANGELS by George Clayton 1851

History of Christian doctrine by Henry Clay Sheldon Volume 1 1886
History of Christian doctrine by Henry Clay Sheldon Volume 2 1886 (Deals with angels and angelology)

The Angel-Messiah of Buddhists Essenes and Christians

The Angel of Jehovah, article in the Bibliotheca Sacra 1859

The Book of Enoch - article in Fraser's Magazine 1833 ("Samyaza and Azazyel, in the Book of Enoch, are among the chiefs of the rebel angels - 'the sons of heaven,' who, in the days when the sons of men had multiplied, and it happened that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful, beheld them, and became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.")

The Autobiography of Satan by John Relly Beard - 1872 ("There you have the full picture of 'the fall of the angels,' involving the incarceration of Azazyel, their leader, and the everlasting punishment with which their crimes were repaid: the entire fiction of 'the devil and his angels' you have there in an anonymous book anterior to Christ, and long anterior to the Gospels and the New Testament in general, including the Apocalypse, which still retains, as do the Gospels, some of the lurid imagery of Enoch the fanatic.")

The evolution of Christianity by Charles Gill 1883 ("Two hundred sons of heaven or angels descended upon Ardis, the top of Mount Armon, under the leadership of Samyaza, and selected wives among the most beautiful daughters of men, who became the mothers of monstrous giants, of appetites so destructive that they
not only devoured birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, but even lived, as cannibals, on human flesh. This appalling reign of violence and cruelty on earth at length aroused Michael, Gabriel, Eaphael, and other loyal members of the heavenly Host...")

The Book of Adam and Eve by Solomon Caesar Malan - 1882

The Watchers and the Holy Ones by Samuel Horsley 1806 (very old, poor quality)

The Loves of the Angels - A Poem by Thomas Moore 1823

The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents by William Oscar Emil Oesterley - 1914

Genius and Spirit of the Hebrew Bible by Constantine Samuel Rafinsque, 1838

The Three Archangels and the guardian angels in art by Eliza Starr 1899

Pagan Origin of Partialist Doctrines By John Claudius Pitrat 1871 ("The Papal Church holds still that the angels form three hierarchies, or choirs. The first is that of the Seraphims, Cherubims, and thrones; the second comprises the dominations, the virtues, and the powers; and the third is composed of the principalities, of the archangels, and of the angels. One of these angels, called guardian, is obliged to stand by each one of us all the days of our life. Temples, altars, prayers and sacrifices are offered to them.")

A glossary of important symbols in their Hebrew, pagan and Christian forms 1912

The Light of Truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures by Levi Rightmyer 1916 ("This Scripture that Jesus quoted from the eighty-second Psalm, proves that mortal men are in some instances called gods, as well as are immortal men or angels; for angels are called both men, and gods, as well as angels.")

A Disseration concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer, chapter in The Judgement of the ancient Jewish church against the Unitarians by Pierre Allix 1821

The Words of the Angels - Their Visits to the Earth, and the Messages they delivered by R. Stier 1879

The Angel of the Lord; or, Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by William Pakenham Walsh 1876

The Angel of Jehovah, article in The Exegete and homiletic monthly 1880

The Guardian Angels or, Friends in Heaven by Sarah Gould 1856

The Magic of Jewels and Charms by George Kunz 1915 (Angels and Ministers of Grace)

Angels and Heaven by Thomas Mills 1872

The Angel of Jehovah, article in The Christian examiner and general review 1836

Spiritism and the Fallen Angels in the light of the Old and New Testaments by James Gray 1920

The anti-universalist, or, History of the fallen angels of the Scriptures by Josiah Priest 1839

Angels in Art by Clara Waters 1898

Origin of Man- A Treatise of Angels, Devils and Men, and a Compendium of War in Heaven by James Simmons 1875

Ethel's Book or, Tales of the angels by FW Faber 1898

Of the Doctrine Respecting Angels, article in Lectures on Christian theology By Georg Christian Knapp 1845 - some pages hard to read
(Importance of, Nature of Angels, Proof of Angels, division of angels, names of good angels, fallen angels and evil spirits)

Is Jesus the Angel Abaddon? by Heinz Schmitz (pdf and Kindle format)

The Nature and Ministry of Holy Angels by James Rawson 1848

THE QUESTION SETTLED- A CAREFUL COMPARISON OF BIBLICAL AND MODERN SPIRITUALISM By MOSES HULL (has a chapter on the "Bible Doctrine of Angel Ministry." 1869

The Angels' Whispers; or, Echoes of Spirit Voices by Daniel Eddy 1881

The ministration of angels 1861

Saint Michael the Archangel - Three Enconiums (tributes) by Theodosius, archbishop of Alexandria; Severus, patriarch of Antioch; and Eustathius, bishop of Trake - the Coptic texts with extracts from Arabic and Ethiopian versions (1894)

Books which influenced Our Lord and His Apostles - being a critical review of apocalyptic Jewish literature by John Thompson 1891
"By later Judaism, the angel of the presence was identified with the Metatron, by others with the Archangel Michael, who again is identified with the Metatron. Later Christian interpretation sees in this the Second Person of the Trinity."

Dictionary of phrase and fable by Ebenezer Brewer 1870

Archangels, article in the Expository Times 1892

Spirit Drawings by W. M. Wilkinson 1858

A Dictionary of Miracles by Ebenezer Brewer 1884

Fallen Angels by "One of Them" (an angel) 1894

God, the author of nature and the supernatural by Joseph Prohle 1912 (sections include: Christian Angelology, Existence, Nature, Number, and Hierarchy of the Angels, Existence and Nature of the Angels, Number and Hierarchy of the Angels, The Angels and the Supernatural Order, The Supernatural Endowment of the Angels, The Angels in Their Relation to Men, or the Guardian Angels, The Apostasy of a Number of the Angels, The Fallen Angels or Demons, The Demons in Their Relation to the Human Race)

The Bible History of Satan. Is he a fallen angel? By a Cambridge master of arts (858

A Dictionary of Islam; being a cyclopaedia of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the Muhammadan religion (1885) by Thomas Hughes
(Muslims have a strong belief in angels)

Demoniality; or, Incubi and Succubi by Maria Sinistrari 1879

The Phantom World - The Philosophy of Spirits, Apparitions, etc by A Calmet 1850 Volume 1

The Phantom World - The Philosophy of Spirits, Apparitions, etc by A Calmet 1850 Volume 2

Spirit rapping unveiled! An expose of the origin, history, theology and philosophy of certain alleged communications from the spirit world by Hiram Mattison 1852

The Spirit Disembodied By Herbert Broughton 1867

The Angelic Council - article in the 20th Century Magazine 1907

Faded myths By Arthur Samuel Peake 1908

The doctrine and literature of the Kabalah by Arthur Waite 1902

Heaven and its Wonders, the World of Spirits, and Hell: from things heard and seen by Emanuel Swedenborg 1885

Join my Facebook Group

Heaven and Hell, Also The Intermediate State, Or World of Spirits by Emanuel Swedenborg 1885

5000 facts and fancies; a cyclopaedia of important, curious, quaint, and unique information in history, literature, science, art, and nature .. (1901)

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 1, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 2, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 3, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 4, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 5, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 6, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 7, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 8, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 9, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882

Arcana Caelestia, The Heavenly Arcana contained in the Holy Scriptures or Word of the Lord unfolded beginning with Genesis together with wonderful things seen in the World of Spirits and in the Heaven of Angels, Volume 10, by Emanuel Swedenborg 1882


On the Book of Enoch - you get:
The Book of Enoch is a very important ancient text that gives high import to angels (The Watchers... the angels who fathered the Nephilim)

Four Notes on the Book of Enoch by FC Burkitt, article in the Journal of Theological Studies 1907

The Book of Enoch translated from August Dillman's text 1893 ("angels" are mentioned 123 times in the Book of Enoch)

The Book of Enoch translated from the Ethiopic with Notes by George H Schodde 1882

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch by William Morfill 1896

The Book of Enoch the Prophet by Richard Laurence 1883

Enoch Restitutus, an Attempt to Separate from the Books of Enoch the book quoted by St. Jude, also a comparison of the chronology of Enoch with the Hebrew Computation, and with the periods mentioned in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse, Includes "The book of Enoch, to which are added parallel passages from the Scriptures" by Edward Murray 1836

The Book of Enoch, the Prophet: An Apocryphal Production, Supposed for Ages to Have Been Lost by Richard Laurence 1838

The Book of Enoch, a chapter in the book _The Christology of Jesus_ by James Stalker 1899

Plus you get:
Is Jesus Christ the Archangel Michael

A Discourse on Denying the Lord Jesus.
by Bernard Whitman  1827
"The Title Michael, the Archangel, literally signifies the head messenger that is like God. This must be Jesus Christ..."

A Dictionary of the Holy Bible By John Brown
"Archangel, a chief angel; but whether this word in Scripture ever denotes a created angel, or always Christ...is hard to determine." p.51
 
A Theological Dictionary: Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms ...
by Charles Buck - Theology - 1831
(p. 29 states that many with reason apply the term archangel "to our Savior"

The Life of Christ: A Poem By Samuel Wesley, Frank Crane 1900
"He is called an Angel, because he governs the world; for it is written, Jehovah
brought us out of Egypt."

Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions - Page 304 by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Theodore Meyer, James Martin 1858
"That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has
already been proved in my commentary upon that passage."

Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary (in html help format)
"Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels"

John Calvin - Commentary on Daniel (in searchable pdf format)
"He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me. Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people."

The Geneva Study Bible (in text format) "Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels."

The Works of Thomas Shepard: First Pastor of the First Church, Cambridge
by Thomas Shepard - 1853
Then shall the voice of the archangel be heard. Now, this archangel is Jesus
Christ himself, as the Scripture expounds, being in the clouds of heaven ...

History of the Old Covenant by Johann Heinrich Kurtz - 1859
"Michael...the uncreated Logos" P. 499

The times of the gentiles by Joseph Baylee - 1871
In His official character Jesus is an angel, and it is He whom St John saw in
this vision as come to judgment. But He does not begin His work until the ...P. 123

The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Explained Agreeably to the Analogy of Holy by John Hooper - 1850
The shout is that of the saints in heaven, and the voice of the archangel is the
voice of the LORD JESUS in His Church, by which the dead are raised, ...

A Dissertation on the Scripture Expressions, the Angel of the Lord, and the Angel of Jesus by William Jones 1752
 
Danville Quarterly Review - Pages 458, 459
 1861
"The first clue to the reconciliation of these two passages, is to be found in
the identity of the Archangel Michael with the Jehovah Angel of the Old Testament..."

Minor Prophets: With Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Practical - Page 394
by Henry Cowles - 1867
Jesus is the angel of the covenant in the twofold sense: (1.) Of being the same personage so often called in the Old Testament an " angel," eg, Ex. 23:20-23.

Joseph and Benjamin: letters on the controversy between Jews and Christians - Page 181, by Joseph Samuel C.F. Frey - 1837
"It further appears that Jesus is the angel Jehovah, from the united testimony of Christian writers."

History of Dogma - Page 185
by Adolf von Harnack, Ebenezer Brown Speirs -1902
"confession that God chose ' and prepared Jesus, that Jesus is the Angel and the servant of God, that he will judge the living and the dead"

The nature and time of the second advent of Messiah, 4 letters - Page 71
by Samuel Madden - 1829
"And further, Jesus is " the Angel of God," or " of the Lord " who spoke to Moses, and, as we before saw, accompanied the Israelites in the cloudy and fiery ..."
 
Zechariah: his visions and warnings - Page 45
by William Lindsay Alexander - 1885
In support of this may be urged (1) the fact that the archangel Michael is
undoubtedly the same being who appears here and elsewhere as the Angel of Jehovah


A Few Reasons for thinking that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ, plus, A Few Reasons for Believing that Christ is Mentioned in the Scriptures under the Character of an Angel, (these are both Chapters from the Book: The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit by William Kinkade 1829

Agreeing with Thy Adversary (Chapter in the Book: The kingdom of God and the kingdom of the heavens by Francis B. Harris)

"The Second Archangel, Michael, became Jesus, "the Son of Man,""
Review in the International Journal of Ethics 1907

"in Enoch xlvi, etc., the term "Son of Man" had been made descriptive of a heavenly being who might be the archangel Michael, and who was expected to become the Messiah. It is only a step from this to such a use on the part of Jesus as we have supposed, though a step which only a religious genius could take."
Review in _The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman_By Rev. J. A. Seiss 1882

"Who, then, is Michael ? Many answer, the Lord Jesus Christ, claiming that it would impinge upon the dignity and prerogatives of Christ to attribute all that is here implied to a mere angel, however exalted." (though this author disagrees)
The Stations and Numbers of Angels - article in THE CHRISTIAN'S PENNY MAGAZINE 1837

"From all this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself..."
Outlines and exposition of the Apocalypse 1867

"Now these things considered, we are fain to acknowledge that the archangel Michael is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ." p.94
The Works of Nathaniel Lardner 1838

"Now upon examination into the scriptures, it will appear, that this Messiah, or Christ, was the same person with the great archangel Michael, who was the guardian angel of Israel."
The Angel-Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians by E Bunsen 1880

The Humanity of Jesus (Article in the Open Court magazine) 1912 -

Discusses Jesus, Michael and Metatron
On the Angel who Bore the Name (from Biblical Notes and Dissertations) by Joseph John Gurney 1843

The Christian Verity Stated in Reply to a Unitarian (has a chapter on The Angel with Moses and the Judges) by Walter Chamberlain 1861

On the First Three Gospels by ERNEST DE BUNSEN (in Misc Notes and Queries)

"Luke has not hesitated to refer mysteriously to the Essenic and Paulinic doctrine of Jesus Christ as the Angel-Messiah. There can be no doubt that already Stephen regarded Jesus as the incarnate Wisdom of God to whom had been attributed a premundane personality by the side of God in the Book of Proverbs, though without an indication of a future incarnation of the Divine Wisdom. With this isolated passage stands in direct connection the statement in the Targum that the world and man were created through the Word or Memra, here called ' the thought or Word of God,' and identified by Targumists with the Metatron or ' Angel by God's throne,' who went before and followed Israel in the wilderness. We pointed out that this Angel, the Angel-Messiah, is by Stephen and Paul identified with Christ."

Angelology by G. Clayton 1851

A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson by Heinz Schmitz:

"Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).  Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).  Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).  In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21) Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.  Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious. Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10) . The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29). The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)  Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his angels" does this in Revelation 12."

Abaddon/Apollyon-Demonic Devil or Angelic Christ? by Heinz Schmitz

The Bible Doctrine of God by W. Kinkade 1829

"The title Michael, the Archangel, literally signifies the head messenger that is like God. This must be Jesus Christ, because we all acknowledge that he is the image of God, and the head messenger that was ever sent into our world."

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy gdixier

The Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT)

The Literal Idiomatic Translation was just brought to my attention, and it is presented at http://www.believershomepage.com/Translation_Page.html

Fans of the NWT and other alternative versions will be pleasantly surprised at this Bible, particularly at John 1:1, Luke 23:43 and a host of other examples. 

This appears to be a 25 year labor of love using the UBS4 Greek text. I personally will be referring back time and again to this well produced version.

Twelve Arguments Refuting The Deity Of The Holy Spirit by John Biddle

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Twelve Arguments Refuting The Deity Of The Holy Spirit by John Biddle

Download this book here

"This brave and good man has sometimes been called "the father of English Unitarianism." Not that he was the first English Unitarian; but he was the first in England to become conspicuous as a public defender of the worship of the one true God. All the accounts we have of Biddle represent him as a pious man without one stain upon his character; a man with a profound reverence for God and Christ, and zealous to promote the holiness of life. The trials of Biddle, his suffering life and premature death in a dungeon, endear his memory and embalm his name." ~Robert Spears

Biddle published this pamphlet in 1644, after a close study of the Trinity:

1) He that is distinguished from God is not God.
The Holy Spirit is distinguished from God.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not God.

2) He that gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites is Jehova Alone.
Then the Holy Spirit is not Jehova or God.

3) He that speakest not for himself is not God.
The Holy Spirit speaks not for himself.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

4) He that is taught is not God.
He that hears from another what he shall speak is taught.
Christ speaks what he is told (John 8:26).
Therefore Christ is not God.

5) In John 16:14 Jesus says: “God is He that giveth all things to all”.
He that receives from another is not God.

6) He that is sent by another is not God.
The Holy Spirit is sent by God.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

7) He that is not the giver of all things is not God (Acts 17:25).
He that is the gift of God is not the giver of all things.
He that is the gift of God is himself given.
The gift is in the power and at the disposal of the giver.
It is therefore absurd to imagine that God can be in the power or at the disposal of another.

8) He that changes place is not God.
The Holy Spirit changes place.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

9) He that prays to Christ to come to judgement is not God.
The Holy Spirit does so.

Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

10) In Romans 10:14 it reads, “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard. He in whom men have not believed, yet were disciples”.
He who is not believed in is not God.
Men have not believed in the Holy Spirit, yet were disciples.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

11) He that hears from God at the second hand, viz the Christ Jesus, what he shall speak has an understanding distinct from God.
He that heareth from God what he shall speak is taught of God.
The Holy Spirit does so.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

12) He that has a will distinct in number from that of God is not God.
The Holy Spirit has a will distinct in number from God (Romans 8: 26-27).
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Frank Ewald on the Trinity

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From: The Bible – the Most Read Book on Earth by Ewald Frank (book available by clicking here)

In the Bible, we find neither the trinity doctrine of three eternal persons nor the baptism in the Trinitarian formula. There is not a single Scripture in which even one act would have been administered in the formula “in the Name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” – not a single one! Every prayer, in fact, everything took place in the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ, for that was the command given to the true believers in Col 3:17: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the LORD Jesus …”

The Trinitarian formula is used in all churches for every religious act or ceremony, for the induction into all orders and lodges, even for spiritualistic sessions, and all the more throughout the entire occultism. It is not biblical; therefore, it can only be unbiblical. It is not of divine origin; therefore, it is false inspiration and deception. Everybody should think about it, also the charismatics who use the Name “Jesus Christ” in the prayer for the sick but vehemently reject to be personally baptized in the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ....

The well-known Swiss theologian Hans Küng covered this important subject in his book Das Christentum (The Christendom), which contains more than a thousand pages. On page 126 he asks the question: “Is there any mention of a trinity in the New Testament?” Immediately thereafter he writes: “No trinity doctrine in the New Testament.” He also discusses the “Comma Johanneum”: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Küng explains: “However, historical-critical research has exposed this sentence as a forgery that came into existence in the third or fourth century in North Africa or in Spain. It was of no use to the Roman inquisition authority when it tried to defend this sentence as being authentic even at the beginning of our century. In plain terms, it means nothing other than this: Within Judeo-Christianity, in fact, in the entire New Testament, there is indeed the faith in God, the Father; in Jesus, the Son; and in God’s Holy Spirit, but there is no doctrine of a god in three persons (forms of existence), no doctrine of a triune god or of a trinity.” (pp. 126-127).

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

ANALUSAI and Philippians 1:23

Ralph Wilson: Philippians 1:22 in their translation reads "what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ," rather than "I desire to depart and be with Christ." Their strange, awkward rendering is intended to support a belief in "soul sleep," since this verse in its true form tells believers that they will be with Christ in heaven the very moment they die.

Reply: I think you are referring to verse 23 and the word ANALUSAI. The Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon has as one of it's renderings into English, "releasing." Liddell Scott, page 112, Section I.2 gives this as a meaning of analusai. [LJS9 I.2 "releasing", Gr., analy'sai; Lat., dissol'vi]

A careful reading of the Nestle Aland Greek text shows an interesting marginal note for Philippians 1:23. There is also a cross-reference from 1Thessalonians 4:17 pointing back to Philippians 1:23. SUNEXOMAI DE EK TWN DUO THN EPIQUMIAN EXWN EIS TO ANALUSAI KAI [1Th 4,17 SUN XRISTW EINAI] POLLW GAR MALLON KREISSON (NA27) 1Th 4,17! EPEITA HMEIS OI ZWNTES OI PERILEIPOMENOI AMA SUN AUTOIS ARPAGHSOMEQA EN NEFELAIS EIS APANTHSIN TOU KURIOU EIS AERA KAI OUTWS PANTOTE [Ph 1,23! SUN KURIW ESOMEQA] (GRK) The context of 1Thessalonians clearly points to the "being with" the Lord Christ Jesus to the future parousia of Christ, at the resurrection.

Greek Professor Gerald Hawthorne has this to say: "Interestingly, Paul now refrains from boldly saying, "I desire to die" (APOQNHSKEIN), preferring rather to use a euphemism (ANALUSAI) for death" (Word Commentary Vol. 43, P. 48). He adds that ANALUSAI can refer to "a ship 'being released from its mooring,' 'weighing anchor' and sailing off." (Ibid.)

Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of baggage animals".

The Revised New Jerusalem Bible also uses the word "released" here, as does Lyman Booth in his "The Mystery Of Iniquity Explained."

I think the New World Translation Bible has handled this verse quite marvelously, proving itself once more to be a valuable asset to any Bible library.

ALL Bibles Add Words

Ralph Wilson: Another concern is the...New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures...Translated by a committee of five, none of whom were trained in Hebrew and Greek...their translation of Colossians 1:16 reads, "By means of him all [other] things were created...." The word "other" is added so that Jesus would be seen as a created being, and not as the divine, uncreated Creator.

Reply: Does the insertion of the word "other" indicate a lack a training in the original languages?

The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples:

Mark 12:43
"this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury." RSV
"this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury." NAB
"I tell you that this poor widow put more in the offering box than all the others." TEV

Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In all these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?

"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".

The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."

Even the NIV has been strongly criticized for adding the word "other" at 1 Cor 6:18, as this changes the meaning and adds the translators theology on the matter.

The NIV has been criticized thusly in other Scriptures also:

"It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of Scripture' should take liberties with the text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts." Chapter 12, The New International Version, The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger [Baker Academic, 2001]

Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word "alone" to the word "faith." The NIV Study Bible says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which, though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways.

All Bibles add words, simply put. Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them. P. Marion Sims researched all the words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in the 1611 King James Version and counted 43, but in the 1870 (Cambridge) edition that number had ballooned to 583 words in italics in the same Gospel. (P. Marion Sims, The Bible in America, New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936, p. 97.)

Let's us not forget the interpolation of the entire spurious clause, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at 1 John 5 in certain Versions, and yet the Bibles that contain these words are praised as masterpieces.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here...AND IT IS ONLY 99 CENTS

Visit a local listing for this book here

My Response to Bible.ca's "Arian Biased Translations"

I often see this article at http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-translations.htm complaining about certain "Arian Biased" translations. Arian (not Aryan) comes from Arius, a non-trinitarian in the 4th century Nicean Controversy that has since been condemned as a heretic. It should be noted that this is the same website that claims that since the 1981 NWT has 1666 pages it must be the Mark of the Beast. In other words, we are not dealing with great intellects at this site.

The Bibles this site has singled out for castigation are:

Schonfield's New Testament

Johannes Greber's New Testament

New World Translation

James Moffatt's Bible

The Smight & Goodspeed Bible

Emphatic Diaglott

Kingdom Interlinear

Lamsa's New Testament

Cotton Patch Version

New English Bible

Revised English Bible

New Testament in an Improved Version - Newcome's New Translation

Let me say right off the bat that if you own all 12 of the above Bibles, you will have a better Bible library than if you owned 12 Evangelical Bible versions...even with the Cotton Patch version and Johannes Greber's New Testament included.

The first complaint is against Schonfield, and that he was an unbeliever. The problem that I have with Bible translations is that there are too many Christians are involved in it. This is why you have a host of Trinitarian Biased Bibles (see what I did there?).

Sometimes on wikipedia you will see this caution: "This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view." The reason that is posted is because you can not always trust fan content. Christian Bible translators are "fans" of God, and of course there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but I take their translations with a cautionary view.

 I also like it when non-believers take it upon themselves to translate the Bible, thus giving us a fresh view of how certain passages can and should be translated.

The next complaint is against Johannes Greber and his spiritistic New Testament. I have dealt with this topic at https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-new-world-translation-and-johannes.html. To be fair, no one really uses this New testament anymore.

Then the website moves on to the New World Translation. No surprise there. The claim is made that the NWT is "Nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase and not even a translation!" This is simply a pejorative statement. The NWT Bible is a fantastic translation that is overly criticized by conservative Christian bigots. Elsewhere on this website they trot out Christian scholars that lambast the NWT, often depending on a now debunked rule of Greek grammar. How embarrasing. Alan S. Duthie in his book How to Choose Your Bible Wisely actually recommends the NWT and Kingdom Interlinear as these are "very literal versions" and are suggested "for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages."

Rational Wiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_translation) sums it up nicely for the NWT: "The NWT is widely condemned by mainstream Christian scholars, primarily because it renders many verses in non-standard ways that do not admit traditional interpretations. Non-religious scholars are more approving of it, considering it a fairly good translation. Robert M. Price, for instance, rarely discusses JWs on his voluminous podcast without mentioning that the New World Translation is surprisingly accurate and in many places superior to mainstream translations."

Next, the webpage criticizes James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed for being too "liberal." Moffatt and Goodspeed are the greatest Bible translators ever. These men are giants in the field. Christians should thank God for these two men and whatever skepticism they had that led to their respective masterpieces.

After this, the complaint is targeted against J.M. Powis Smith, the translator of the Old Testament portion of the Complete Bible: An American Translation. The site focuses on Isaiah 7:14 where Smith translates the Hebrew word Almah as "young woman" instead of as "virgin." A lot of Bibles translate it this way. Even Catholics, who venerate the Virgin Mary, translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman." (See the New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible)

The Emphatic Diaglott next comes under attack because the translator "no credentials in Greek." Yet, the translator (Benjamin Wilson) managed to produce a scholarly work which was praised the clergy in his day. See https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/19th-century-reviews-of-emphatic.html for more.

George M. Lamsa is condemned next. No examples are given from Lamsa's New Testament as to why this is a bad translation. We are simply supposed to reject his New Testament because Lamsa held views that are not 100% in line with those of Bible.ca. If I were to only read books by people that completey agree with my outlook, I would never read anything at all.

Next up is the Kingdom Interlinear, which was according to them was "Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses." Isn't the New International Version "produced by Evangelicals for Evangelicals." Do you really think Jews or Catholics are reading the NIV Bible? As James Barr wrote in the Quarterly  Review/Fall 1994: "The reason for the existence of the NIV is not, and never was, that it was in any way better, or had better principles of translation, or better scholarship behind it, or that it had solved the problem of style as between archaic 'biblical' style and conversational 'modern' style. Its reason for existence was purely and simply that it was produced by and for evangelicals and for them only."

After this they move on to the Cotton Patch version. No one really takes this Bible seriously. It is gimmicky and silly little rewording of the Bible.

The New English Bible & Revised English Bible is next in line for rebuke as "it is unreliable as a literal translation." The NEB and its successor the REB were never meant to "literal." These are "free" translations. They are not "word for word" translations but instead "meaning for meaning" translations. Interestingly, the site states that the NEB "does get some stuff right on" and they point to the NEB translation of John 1:1c, "What God was the Word was." You know who else likes that translation of John 1:1? Unitarians (See One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith by John W. Schoenheit, Mark H. Graeser & John A. Lynn)

Last, but not least is Newcome's Corrected New Testament in an Improved Version of 211 years ago. The claim was that this Bible "altered Newcome's text." Of course they did. This is what "corrected" Bibles do. It was common back then to alter or amend existing Bibles, and you cannot do that without "altering" the text of the original. Noah Webster's Bible was one such Bible, as was John Wesley's. This site let's us know that this altered Bible was made by Unitarians, and Unitarians are a "cult." CULT is code for "anyone who disagrees with me." The word also is used to insinuate that the accused is intellectually deficient. Let it be known that some of the smartest people in history were Unitarians. Isaac Newton, Michael Servetus and Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians, to name a few. Tim Berners Lee, the man who gave us the World Wide Web is a Unitarian as well.

It should be noted that the alterations made to Archbishop Newcome's New Testament were indeed improvements, especially when it comes to John 1:1, and this altered text does not provide, according to this site, "a basis for the New World Translation's '...and the Word was a god,'"...common sense and good grammar does. This translation of John 1:1c had been translated and discussed long before Newcome's 1808 correction.

And, as Winthrop Bailey remarked a long time ago: "If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so."

metatron3@gmail.com

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here...AND IT IS ONLY 99 CENTS

Visit a local listing for this book here

A Look at the New European Version Bible

http://www.n-e-v.info/

The New European Version states that it is a "remediation" of the King James and Revised Version. The past has given us many corrected versions of the Authorized Version.* It is, since based on the RV and KJV a formal equivalent Bible. Unlike the RV and KJV, it uses modern English.

This Bible seems to be associated with the Christadelphians, a Biblical Unitarian Christian group started by John Thomas in the 19th century. This would make the NEV the second Bible associated with the Christadelphians, the first being the Emphatic Diaglott, first published in 1864.

The Old Testament uses "Yahweh" consistently, which already makes it superior to most Bibles in use today. Here are some examples/samples from this Bible:

I AM is used at Exodus 3:14, which John 8:58 has "I am of higher status" which to me is an interpretive gloss instead of a remediation.

Proverbs 8:22 still uses "possessed."

Isaiah 9:6 has, "Divine Warrior, Father of the Eternal Age."

Micah 5:2 still has "from everlasting."

Matthew 16:18 uses "grave" instead of "hell" or "hades." Gehenna is used at Matthew 5:22.

"Eternal punishment" is used at Matthew 25:46

This Bible retains the longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae (Jesus and the woman taken in adultery at John 7:53–8:11.)

The comma is placed after "today" at Luke 23:43.

John 1:1 has "the Word was Divine" which is superior to the standard translation of this text, and a nod to the two greatest Bible translators, Moffatt and Goodspeed.

John 1:18 has "only begotten Son."

Acts 20:28 has "church of the Lord"

Php 2:6 has "though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God."

Titus 2:13 has "the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Hebrews 1:8 has "Your throne, O Mighty One" (Ps 45:6 has "Your throne, God.")

2 Peter 1:1 has "our God, and the Saviour Jesus Christ."

There are times when I wanted this Bible to go further, but it was conservative in certain verses that may have dealt with Christ's pre-existence. But even with that, the NEV Bible is much better than your average Evangelical Bible and it is recommendable.



*Other Amended/Corrected editions of the KJV are: The Commonly Received Version of the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with several hundred emendations by Spencer Houghton Cone and William H. Wyckoff

The Corrected English New Testament: A Revision of the "Authorised" Version using Nestle's Resultant Greek Text by Samuel Lloyd 1905

The Authorized Version with 20,000 Emendations by John Conquest 1841

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version with the Text Revised, The Marginal References Remodelled and a Critical Introduction Prefixed 1873 by F.H. Scrivener

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: the Common English version corrected by the final committee (1865) American Bible Union Version by American Baptist Publication Society

Noah Webster's Bible

The Primitive New Testament 1745 by William Whiston
Whiston is best known for his translation of Josephus. He follows the KJV except where it departs from the "primitive" text.

Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament by John Wesley 1754
This translation is based on the KJV and revised and altered where Wesley thought it needed it.

A New Translation by Gilbert Wakefield (Unitarian) 1820
Follows the KJV but altered where required.

Scriptures Hebrew and Christian Volume 1 (first 543 pages) by Edward Bartlett and John Peters 1888
Follows the KJV but has made changes in idiom, and uses the divine name Jehovah throughout.

Scriptures Hebrew and Christian Volume 2 by Edward Bartlett and John Peters 1888

The Runner's Bible, Compiled and Annotated for the Reading of Him who Runs 1915
Both the KJV and the English Revised Version are used in this compilation

A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, according to the Authorized Version, Corrected by the Best Critical editions of the original (1871) by Frederick Gardiner

Thi Nu Testament ov owr Lord and Savyur Jizus Crist Acording to thi Othurizd Vurshun 1846 (Phonetic Bible - Phonotypic)

The Holy Bible in Pitman's Shorthand (Phonography) according to the Authorised version (1890)

Isaiah of Jerusalem in the authorized English version with Corrections and Notes, by Matthew Arnold 1883

An Attempt Towards an Improved Translation of the Proverbs by George Holden 1818

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Revised from the Authorized Version with the aid of other Translations and made conformable to the Greek text of J.J. Griesbach by Edgar Taylor 1840

In the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Dr. Ralph Wilson: While the Bible does not use the term "Trinity," the idea is clearly there. For example, Jesus directed that people be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Reply: Mt 28:19, 20 does mention all three together, but why is being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," supposed to be the same as saying that they are of the same substance and essence?

McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

Why? Let us look at one reason.

Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity.

Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the day when they were created."
Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME.

Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had
different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name".

It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names".

Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is used in a distributive sense.

Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons.

The Bible clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son.
Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!"

Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another.

To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range of ONOMA itself.

If simply mentioning the 3 together ensures triunity, then God, and the Son and the angels must be some mysterious triad, as they are mentioned together more often, (Matt 18:10,11; Matt 16:27; Matt 24:36; Mk 8:38; Mk 13:32; Luk 9:26; 12:8; Jn1:51; 1Cor 4:9, 10; 1Tim:21; Heb 1:6; Heb 2:9; 1Pet 3:22; Rev 14: 21,22)
..or even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 50:24; Ex 2:24; 3:6, 15,16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 2Kings 13:23; Jer 33:26; etc).

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Early Evolution of Trinitarianism By Levi Leonard Paine 1900

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here...AND IT IS ONLY 99 CENTS

Visit a local listing for this book here

[The Trinity] dogma, as it was finally developed by the theologians of the third and fourth centuries, is essentially Greek, not Jewish; Alexandrian, not Palestinian; and to Paul we must look for its real beginnings. He laid the foundations of the metaphysical bridge by which Judaism in its Christianized form passed over to Greek philosophical thought, to be metamorphosed by it into a Graeco-Christian theology. Before Paul there had been no suggestion of trinity; God was "one God." Christ was "a man approved of God unto men by mighty works which God did by him." He was God's "holy servant," "a prophet," "anointed one," "exalted by God to be a prince and a Saviour." The Acts, from which these quotations are taken, are full of such expressions, and they clearly represent the christology of Paul's day. The Synoptic gospels are here in close harmony with the Acts. The Jewish Christian Messianism is the fundamental doctrine throughout. Christ is Messiah, Son of man, Master, messenger of God; but he is nowhere metaphysically distinguished from other men, as if his nature was superhuman or divine. It was Paul who with his Greek Philonic theory of a metaphysical superhuman mediator gave an entirely new shaping to the messianic doctrine, and he may be truly called the real originator of the trinitarian conception which finally issued in the Nicene creed.

What, then, was the doctrine of Paul concerning God and Christ? He nowhere gives us a full metaphysical statement. It is not clear that he had developed any precise theological doctrine of the Trinity. Certainly his view of the third person is indefinite; and it is doubtful whether he regarded the Holy Spirit as a personal being. In the two passages which contain his most discriminating utterances on the subject of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned: "To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (1 Cor. viii. 6). "There is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ii. 5). These passages have a credal ring, and, together with the baptismal formula, seem to be the basis of the early confessions. Two points bearing upon the question of the Trinity stand out clearly. First, Paul remained a firm adherent of the Jewish monotheism. To him, as to Moses and to Christ, God was a single personal being—"the Father," "the blessed and only potentate," "whom no man hath seen, nor can see." Secondly, Paul distinguished Christ from God, as a personal being, and regarded him, moreover, as essentially inferior and subordinate to the supreme Deity. I do not press the point here that Paul, in the second passage quoted, expressly calls Christ a man, in direct antithesis with God. Other passages make it plain that the apostle conceived of Christ as superhuman and preexistent and as having a certain metaphysical relation to God. But that Paul ever confounded Christ with God himself, or regarded him as in any way the supreme Divinity, is a position invalidated not only by direct statements, but also by the whole drift of his epistles. The central feature of Paul's christology is its doctrine of mediatorship: "One God, the Father, and one mediator between God and men." This is a theological advance on the messianic doctrine of the Synoptic gospels. Messiahship is the doctrine of a "Son of Man;" mediatorship is the doctrine of a "Son of God." Paul gives no evidence of acquaintance with the Logos doctrine, but he anticipates it. He exalts Christ above all human beings. If he does not clothe him with the supreme attributes of Deity, he places him next to God in nature, honor, and power; so that, while remaining a monotheist, he takes a long step toward a monotheistic trinitarianism, giving us the one only trinitarian benediction of the New Testament (2 Cor. xiii. 14).

Passing to the post-apostolic age, we find that these two articles of Paul's doctrine form the basis of the faith of the church. Not only so, they continue to be the characteristic and fundamental features of the Greek Trinitarianism through the whole course of its development. From beginning to end, Greek theology is distinctly monotheistic. Clement writes: "As God lives and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives." So Athenagoras: "We acknowledge a God, and a Son, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit." So Dionysius of Rome: "We must believe on God the Father Omnipotent, and on Jesus Christ his Son, and on the Holy Spirit." The Nicene creed, in which Greek orthodoxy culminated, continues the strain in language which is a clear echo of Paul himself: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty," "and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father." To be sure, the Son of God is also called God in the added phrase, "God of God;" but "God" is here descriptive, in the sense of divine, since the Son of God is begotten of the Father and hence of the same divine nature. The Father is God in the primary or supreme sense. Christ as Son is God only in a derived or secondary sense. As the evolution of church doctrine went on, the trinitarian element grew more explicit and complete, but the original Pauline monotheism was never given up. In fact, the more pronounced the Greek Trinitarianism became, the more tenaciously its monotheism was declared and vindicated. God, the Father, the eternal cause of all things, was never confounded with either of the other persons, or with the Trinity as a whole.

The same is true of Paul's doctrine of mediatorship. It also became a vital feature of Greek theology, and remained its moulding principle through all its history. A difference, however, is to be noted. The doctrine of monotheism naturally lay in the background, as a fixed quantity, being assumed always as a cardinal truth of Christianity which had its birth on Jewish monotheistic ground, and carefully avoided all connection with the pagan polytheism. Not so with the doctrine of Christ's mediatorship. This was the new truth of Christianity. Theologically, Christianity is a christology. Its Trinitarianism started out of its doctrine of Christ as the Son of God and the mediator between God and man. Around this point the early controversies arose, and here began a christological evolution which became the central factor of Greek ecclesiastical history through its whole course. This evolution must be fully comprehended, if we would understand the Nicene Trinitarianism. It may be naturally divided into four sections or stages, represented by the names of Paul, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Athanasius.

The faith of the sub-apostolic age remained essentially Pauline. It is truly represented in the primitive portions of the so-called Apostles' creed. Christ was regarded as a superhuman being, above all angels and inferior only to God himself, preexistent, appearing among men from the heavenly world, the true Son of God, and hence in a sense God, as of divine nature, though not the Supreme One. But no further metaphysics is yet attempted. There is no Logos doctrine. This doctrine which was to so change the whole current of Christian thought, and give such an impulse to the spirit of metaphysical speculation, first appears in Justin Martyr.

The question here arises and cannot be ignored: What place should be given in this evolution to the fourth Gospel? The question of actual date does not now concern us. The point is: When does the fourth Gospel appear in history as a document to which theological appeal is made? Certainly the two questions are closely connected, and I would here declare my conviction that no satisfactory conclusion can be reached on the Johannine problem, until the historical facts as to the relation of the fourth Gospel to the origin of the Logos doctrine are properly weighed. Three facts especially are to be considered. First, setting aside the fourth Gospel itself, no trace of a Logos doctrine appears in the early church until Justin Martyr; that is, more than a century after the death of Christ. Secondly, none of the post-apostolic Fathers before Justin Martyr allude to the fourth Gospel or quote from it. [I leave out of account the Ignatian Epistles, which, if genuine, are so greatly interpolated as to be unworthy of confidence, and also the Epistle to Diognetus, which is now properly regarded as of later date. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the Epistles of Clement, of Barnabas, of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Fragments of Papias, and the recently discovered Apology of Aristides, make no allusion to a Logos doctrine or to the fourth Gospel.]

Thirdly, Justin Martyr plainly draws his Logos doctrine from Greek philosophic sources, never quoting the fourth Gospel by name in defense of it, and never even referring to the Gospel at all, so that it is still a disputed question whether he was directly acquainted with it. Whatever be the truth on this point, it does not affect the fact with which we are now concerned, viz., that so far as the light of early church history goes, the Logos doctrine is not shown to be of apostolic origin, or drawn from the fourth Gospel. If this gospel is Johannine, it was, for some reason, not in general circulation before Justin Martyr's time, and was not quoted in connection with the Logos doctrine till quite late in the second century. To assume that the fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John, and then conclude that the Logos doctrine of the post-apostolic church is Johannine and apostolic, against evidence of the clearest sort to the contrary, is one of the most vicious and fallacious of syllogisms. I regret to say that this style of reasoning is not yet extinct. [See, for one illustration, Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine Writings, p. 189: "The doctrine of the Logos frequently occurs in the writings of the Fathers, especially of Justin Martyr. They derived their notions concerning it from the Gospel of John." In his preface the writer allows that "the authenticity of John's Gospel is the great question of modern criticism, and must be regarded as still unsettled." Yet here he assumes this "unsettled question'" to be a fact, and then assumes that Justin Martyr was acquainted with the fourth Gospel, and derived his Logos doctrine from it. A similar piece of false reasoning occurs in regard to a quotation in the Epistle of Polycarp from the first Epistle of John (p. 101). Polycarp does not allude to John anywhere in his Epistle, nor does he give the authorship of the quotation; yet Dr. Gloag, assuming that the author of the fourth Gospel and the first Epistle of John is the same, concludes: "We have then the testimony of Polycarp in proof of the genuineness of John's Gospel, and this testimony is of great importance, as Polycarp was the disciple of John." Observe how the testimony of Irenaeus, a generation later, as to Polycarp's relation to John, is here used to prop up a conclusion that is wholly without foundation. The question is not whether Polycarp was acquainted with John, but whether he gives any evidence of acquaintance with the reputed Gospel of John. There is not a hint of it in his Epistle, or even that he knew John at all. To assume that John wrote both Gospel and Epistle, and then that Polycarp, as a disciple of John, must have been acquainted with both Gospel and Epistle, and then to argue from an anonymous quotation from the Epistle that the Gospel is Johannine, is a flagrant petitio principii.]

As to the origin of the Logos doctrine in general there can be no question. It has no Jewish ancestry. The Logos doctrine is essentially a mediation doctrine. It is based on the idea of the divine transcendence and of a cosmological void needing to be filled between the absolute God and the world. Jewish theology held indeed to the divine transcendence; but by its doctrine of creation, involving a direct creative act, and of man as formed in the divine image, it brought God into the closest relations with all his creatures, and especially with man himself. God walking in the garden and conversing with Adam is a picture of the whole Old Testament conception of God's immediate connection with the human race. In fact, there lurks in Jewish thought a strong tincture of divine immanence in its whole theory of theophanies, and most of all in its conception of "the Spirit of the Lord " moving directly upon human souls. Thus no basis was laid in Jewish theology for the growth of a Logos doctrine. The "Wisdom" of the Proverbs is simply a poetical personification of the divine attribute. Christ has much to say of his close relation to God, and of his mission to men; but it was a mission based on spiritual needs, soteriological, not cosmological. The term Logos he never uses, and the conception was quite foreign to him. Had the Logos mediation doctrine been a product of Jewish thought, it would certainly have appeared in Paul; but he gives no hint of it. We have indeed his doctrine of Christ's mediatorship in a new form, and the beginnings of a cosmological view of Christ's nature, as being "the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;" but this is Greek, not Jewish, and gives evidence of his acquaintance with Greek philosophy. For it is in Greek philosophy that the sources of the Logos doctrine are to be found. It first appeared in the cosmological Asia Minor school, in the sixth century B.C, to explain the order of the world, as a principle of reason and law. As such it was employed by Heraclitus and Anaxagoras. When the dualistic school of Plato arose, it became the mediating principle between the transcendent spiritual sphere and the world of phenomena. It also appeared in Stoicism, to sustain its doctrine of a divine immanence in nature. Thus the Logos as a divine principle with mediating functions had a long history in Greek philosophy before it became christologized in the early church. Justin Martyr directly refers to Platonic and Stoic authorities for his Logos ideas. He was himself a Platonist before he became a Christian, and he never laid aside his philosopher's cloak. He believed that Greek philosophy was a partial revelation of divine truth, and he drew from it weapons to be used in the service of Christian dogma. Justin belonged to the school of Paul, and in his hands the Pauline form of doctrine was not essentially modified. The new Logos ideas fitted quite closely to Paul's own.

But three points are noticeable in the Logos doctrine, which became fountain heads of tendencies that were finally to change the whole current of theological thought, and to substitute for the Pauline christology something radically different.

First, the Logos doctrine emphasized the superhuman or divine element in Christ's nature. Paul again and again called Christ a man. But he also gave him a preexistence and "form of God" which distinguished him from merely human beings, and thus laid a cosmological basis for his mediatorship. It is here that the Logos, doctrine comes in. The philosophical Logos was essentially cosmological and metaphysical. It was a necessary bond of communication between the world of spiritual intelligences and this lower world of time and sense. In itself, whether as an impersonal principle or as a personal being, it was utterly aloof from earth; but its great function was mediatorial, and thus in its relationships it touched both spheres. When Jesus Christ was identified with the Logos, his whole being was transcendentalized. His human and earthly features were transfigured, and lost in the higher glory. He was no longer the Son of man, but the Son of God, and even a quasi divinity. The whole point of view was changed. Paul starts with the human and proceeds to the divine. The Logos doctrine reverses the process. As a consequence, while Paul never lost sight of Christ's real humanity, the Logos theology was in danger at once of regarding Christ as essentially a transcendent being descending from the higher sphere, and entering human relations in a sort of disguise. This danger brought forth its natural fruit in the later monophysite heresies.

Secondly, the Logos doctrine in its assertion of Christ's mediatorship emphasized the subordination element which characterizes Paul's christology, and tended to magnify it. It is the essence of the Logos doctrine that the Logos mediates between what is higher than itself and what is lower. He is a middle being both in nature and function. Such is the mediating principle of Plato, the demon of Plutarch, the Logos of Philo. This cosmological view, treating the Logos principle as necessary and immanent in the universe, and not as introduced providentially into the moral order in consequence of sin, now came into Christian theology. Paul started it, but the Logos doctrine completed it. In this view the subordination element is vital, and it became the governing note of the whole Logos school. Justin Martyr's doctrine of Christ was that of a Son of God, wholly removed in his preincarnate existence from the human sphere, and yet as completely distinguished from the Supreme Being. He regards the Logos of God as originally immanent in God, as the divine reason, and then at a point in time evolved into a personal existence of sonship and mediating activity. This development of the Logos into personality is by the divine will. Thus the Son of God is subordinate to the Father in all things, though having his origin in the Father's essence. Justin was philosophically a Platonic transcendentalist. The Supreme Being was in his view invisible and unapproachable. Hence his idea that the Jehovah of the Old Testament in his various theophanies was not the Father but the Son or Logos. He found traces of the Logos even in pagan philosophy and faith, and in the lives of such men as Socrates.

A third feature of the Logos doctrine was to be still more influential in radically remoulding Greek Christian thought. I refer to its purely metaphysical and speculative character. The Logos doctrine may be true, but if so, its truth is metaphysical, not historical. The Christ of history is not a speculation of Greek philosophy. The introduction of the Logos doctrine into Christian theology, giving a new shape as it did to the entire content of faith, wrought an immense change in its whole spirit and direction. Instead of resting on historical facts, it now built itself on certain speculative assumptions. This is the secret of the remarkable change from the confessional character of the Apostles' creed to the transcendental metaphysics of Nice and Chalcedon. It is a fact which theologians have been slow to learn, that the metaphysical words so freely used by the Greek Fathers in theological controversy were all borrowed from the philosophical nomenclature of Plato and Aristotle. This becomes especially apparent in what may be called the scholastic period of Greek theology, and is well illustrated by John of Damascus, who prefaces his great work, "On the Orthodox Faith," with an explanatory dictionary of Aristotelean terms.

Before proceeding to Origen, it is proper to say a few words as to the relation of the fourth Gospel to the further history, and also concerning the general character of its christology. Although Justin Martyr himself makes no use of this gospel in connection with his Logos doctrine, it begins to be quoted by his immediate successors, and soon becomes the great repository of proof texts for the whole Logos school. It is pertinent, therefore, to note that its christology is essentially Pauline, with the addition of the Logos terminology. Its monotheism is decided. God is always the Father. Christ is the mediator sent of God, subordinate and dependent. Its doctrine is summed up in the words of Christ's prayer, "This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." In a single point, however, the Johannine christology advances beyond the Pauline. Paul has a transcendental view of Christ as the "form" and "image" of God. But the fourth Gospel develops a metaphysical unity between the Father and the Son to which Paul is a stranger. Just how much is involved in the famous passage, "I and my Father are one," is somewhat doubtful. It is clear, however, that the unity asserted is not one of substance or being, since Christ compares it to the unity of believers: "that they all may be one even as we are one."

There is a general resemblance between the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel and that of Justin Martyr. Yet there are striking divergences which indicate an independent origin. The fourth Gospel is mystical, with a spice of Neo-Platonism, reminding one of Philo. Justin is speculative, with an emanation element which has a Stoic strain. His distinction between the immanent and the personalized Logos is wanting in the fourth Gospel. Behind both is the shadow of Gnosticism. But the fourth Gospel gives the clearest signs of Gnostic influence. Its peculiar vocabulary is from Gnostic sources. The Gnostic dualism is also suggested in the shaping given to the doctrine of Satan, and in the two classes of men, children of light, who are sons of God, and children of darkness, who are of their "father the devil." The real authorship of the fourth Gospel is obscure. It may be that there is behind it a true Johannine tradition; but philosophically it plainly belongs to the Philonic school. It is no valid objection that Philo has no incarnation. The object of the gospel, in part at least, was, in a Gnostic way, to identify the Jesus of history with the mediation Logos of Greek philosophy. This required that the Logos should be made flesh. It seems probable that the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel and that of Justin Martyr represent two separate streams of philosophical Christian thought, which afterwards became united in a common evolution.

We come to Origen, the boldest speculator and the most fertile thinker of the ancient church. The school which he founded included all the lights of later Greek orthodoxy. Even Athanasius, who called no man master, sought the aid of his great name, and quoted him to show that he was a true homoousian. Origen stamped on Greek theology the essential features that it has borne ever since. In his hands the Logos doctrine suffered two amendments. The first is his view of the eternal generation of the Son. The distinction of the Justin Martyr school between immanent and personalized Logos Origen discarded. He taught that the Son was eternally a distinct personal being. Holding to his real generation from the Father, he insisted that it was without beginning, since the Father's activity was unchangeable and eternal. This view placed the Logos doctrine on a firmer metaphysical basis, since it removed the Son of God more completely from the category of created beings, and also opposed all theories of a temporal evolution such as were proposed by the Sabellians. The Origenistic doctrine of eternal generation has recently been treated with considerable contempt, but it took a firm hold on the Greek mind and became the fundamental note of the Greek Trinitarianism. It has been said that the Nicene creed does not teach it. This cannot be sustained. It is certainly implied there. In fact, the whole homoousian doctrine is built upon it, and Athanasius, the great expounder of the doctrine, clearly holds it.

The second amendment of Origen was in the line of the strict subordination of the Son to the Father. He not only emphasized this point as essential to the defense of the trinitarian doctrine against the charge of tritheism, but he also gave it an entirely new theological aspect by insisting on the difference of essence. Justin Martyr made the Son to be an emanation or product of the Father's essence. Origen opposed all emanation theories, substituting the doctrine of eternal generation. Hence he denied that the Son was of the same essence with the Father, although he at the same time denied that he was of any created essence. The Son was truly begotten of the Father, but his nature was different, since he lacked the attributes of absoluteness and selfexistence, and derived his being from the Father's will. Thus Origen reduced the Son to a sort of middle being between the uncreated and the created, and paved the way for Arius.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Arius has become the arch-heretic of church history; but in the interest of historical truth I wish to say that great injustice has been done him. He was a sincere and thorough Trinitarian after the type of his age, and sought to defend the trinitarian doctrine against all taint of Sabellianism. But his polemic led him to take a step further in the direction toward which Origen had pointed, and which had already been anticipated by such Origenists as Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, — that the Son of God, if truly derived from the Father and by his will, must be a creature, though the highest creature in the universe, and the creator himself, as the Logos or mediation principle, of all other creatures.

We are thus brought to the great crisis in the development of the Greek theology, and to its fourth stage, — the epoch of Athanasius and the Nicene creed. Historically and critically, Athanasianism is simply a revolt from the subordination tendency, when carried too far, and a counter-reaction along the Origenistic lines of eternal generation and of an essential difference between the Son of God and all created beings. But, as is usual in such reactions, it went to the opposite extreme. Arius had stretched subordination to its farthest point. Athanasius reduced it to a minimum. Origen had described the Son as "a middie being between the uncreated and the created." The Nicene creed declared him to be of the same essence with the Father, since he is true Son of God, and as a Son must be of the Father's nature, — "God of God, very God of very God." Thus the term homoousios becomes the turning-point of the Nicene epoch. Yet curiously this famous word made much less noise in the Athanasian age than it has since, and, besides, a new meaning has been foisted upon it which has no ground in the word itself or in the use made of it by the Nicene theologians. It was put into the Nicene creed by a sort of accident, as Athanasius explains, in order to drive the Arians from their cover; and although it became in this way a watch-word of orthodoxy, it was not insisted on as essential even by Athanasius himself. What it meant to the Nicene party is clear from Athanasius' own explanations. He declares distinctly that it was used simply to signify that the Son was truly Son, not putatively or adoptively, and that, as true Son, he was of the same generic nature with the Father, and so equal to the Father in all divine attributes. Athanasius was ready even to accept the term homoiousios (like in essence) as a synonym for homoousios (completely like in essence), if it was explained to mean a likeness of essence in kind which would allow that the Son was a true Son and derived from the Father his essential qualities. This, in fact, became the basis of the union which followed between the Athanasian and Semi-Arian parties, resulting in the acceptance of the Nicene creed by all except the extreme Arians. It is a fact which seems not to be generally recognized, that Athanasius uses the word homoousios very rarely, while he employs the word homoios (like) very frequently, as expressing his own position concerning the relation of the Son to the Father. It is significant that in the "Statement of Faith" which was written not long after the formation of the Nicene creed, he uses simply the word homoios, "being like the Father, as the Lord says: 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.'" What Athanasius contended for so stoutly against the Arians was the real divine sonship of Christ, and his essential equality with the Father. When this was allowed, he cared little for words.

We are now prepared to estimate more clearly and comprehensively the trinitarianism of Athanasius. Radically it is Origenism. The Logos doctrine, in its Origenistic form of eternal generation and derived subordination, forms the backbone of the Nicene christology. Too much theological significance has been given by historical writers to the Nicene epoch, as if it created an essentially new theology. This is very far from the truth. It was a time of widespread ecclesiastical ferment, and men of action, rather than of speculative thought, came to the front. A conflict arose between two factions of the same theological school. Origenism became divided against itself. Athanasius was not a speculative, systematic thinker; he was a born leader of men, a knight of Christian chivalry, ready to point his lance at every denier of "the faith once delivered." He seized the word homoousios and threw it as a gauntlet into the arena, but it was a word of battle to be dropped at leisure, not a note of new theology. It was in the Latin West that a makeshift catch-word of the Nicene nomenclature was taken up, its true meaning misunderstood, and a new scheme of trinitarian theology drawn from it. The difference between Athanasius and Origen is largely a matter of words. Origen disliked the term homoousios because it seemed to break down subordination and introduce tritheism. Athanasius adopted it because it seemed to save subordination from the annihilating heterousianism (unlikeness of essence) of Arius. Both were defending the same position, but from different standpoints. Yet Athanasius took one long step forward. He held to a certain subordination of the Son to the Father, as he was compelled to, in consistency with the essential character of the Logos mediating doctrine, to which he unflinchingly adhered. But he reduced it, as we have already said, to its lowest possible terms. He was ready to call Christ God, not merely in the larger sense of what is superhuman or divine, but in the strict meaning, "very God of very God," as having the same essential nature with the Father. He even declared the Son to be "equal" to the Father, applied to him the terms which characterize the highest deity, and gave him the supreme attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and sovereignty. This is new theological language, and seems to indicate an entirely new departure. But a close study of Athanasius makes it clear that he has not departed from the Origenistic principles of generation and subordination. In fact, he could not do so without surrendering the whole Logos doctrine in its original form, and exposing himself to the charge of holding to three independent Gods. If he had felt a leaning toward the entire elimination of the subordination element, of which there is no evidence, the danger of such a charge would have deterred him. The one object of dread ever present to the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers was the spectre of Tritheism. To be squarely Trinitarian and yet not be Tritheistic was the great effort of Greek theology. How was it accomplished? The answer to this question gives us the "open sesame" of the Athanasian Trinitarianism. Three distinct points are to be noted, — the view taken of the Father; of the Son; and of their metaphysical relation to each other.

First, the Father, with Athanasius, is the one God, the Absolute and Supreme Being. He never confounds the one God with the Trinity. The three Persons are not one Being. This, to him, is Sabellianism. His monotheism is clearly set forth in his "Statement of Faith:" "We believe in one Unbegotten God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, that hath his being from himself, and in one only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father without beginning and eternally." Unbegottenness and self-existence are here made the essential attributes of the Father alone. He is the eternal cause and fountain of all being, including even the being of the Son and Holy Spirit. This point is fundamental in the Athanasian system; it is the philosophical Platonic assumption with which he starts, and on which he builds his Logos doctrine. It is the stronghold of his theism against all pantheism on the one hand, and of his monotheism against all polytheism or tritheism on the other. No Greek theologian held more firmly to the divine transcendence than Athanasius. He had no controversy with Arius here. He held equally with him that God was utterly unlike his creation, and was separated from it, in his essence, by infinite measures. Hence the prominence given by him to the Logos doctrine, which is central and dominant in his whole christology. With Athanasius the Logos in his mediation role is essential to the existence of the universe as well as to the redemption of mankind. In him the cosmological idea triumphs over the soteriological. Christ is much more than the Saviour of men; he is the eternal and necessary principle of mediation and communion between the transcendent God and all created things. Thus the incarnation rather than the crucifixion is made the prominent fact in the relation of Christ to men. It is not sin merely, but nature as created, that separates man from God. Athanasius here departs from the Scripture, which teaches man's essential likeness to God, and also from Plato, who declares that "likeness to God" (hOMOIWSIS TW QEW) is man's great prerogative and moral duty. Plato's doctrine of transcendence was modified by his view of man's moral relationship. (Athanasius tended rather to emphasize the divine transcendence and to separate man from God more completely. Hence, according to him, the absolute necessity of the incarnation. "The Word was made man that we might be divinized". And here appears the great reason why Athanasius insisted so earnestly upon the homoousian doctrine. In his view, unless the Logos mediator was essentially divine, "very God of very God," the chasm between God and man, between the infinite and the finite, could not be spanned. But let it be noted that this whole view involves the strictest monotheism. The Logos mediating principle is as sharply distinguished from the Absolute God as he is from the creation in whose behalf he mediates.

Secondly, Athanasius' doctrine of the Son is the logical resultant of his doctrine of the Absolute God as Father and of the mediating Logos. How does the Logos become endowed with his mediating function? It is by virtue of his Sonship. The Logos of God is the Son of God, and hence able to reveal him. Here Athanasius is a true Origenist. Sonship is not a superficial and temporal movement of the divine activity; it is an eternal relationship. Athanasius, moreover, holds equally with Origen to the reality and genuineness of the sonship. He does not explain it away as mere metaphor. The real sonship is what he means by homoousios. This sonship is what separates Christ from the category of creatures and makes him truly divine. But real sonship involves a real generation. This, too, Athanasius accepts in all its literalness, though he guards against a materialistic view of it. In one point only does he vary from Origen, — in making the generation an eternal fact or condition of the divine nature, rather than a voluntary movement of the divine will. Thus the ground is laid for the subordination of the Son to the Father. The Son is a generated, that is, a derived being. Consequently he is not self-existent or independent. This is distinctly declared in one remarkable passage (fourth Oration, 3), where Athanasius argues that if the Logos were self-existent there would result two independent causes of existence or supreme Beings. The subordination thus involved is not a mere official one. The whole theory of official subordination is a product of Western thought; it is unknown in Greek theology. Subordination with Athanasius is of nature, for the Son derives his existence "from the Father's essence." It is true that he insists upon the equality of the Son with the Father. Yet the term "equal" was used by him in a relative, not absolute sense. It applied to those attributes with which Christ was endowed by virtue of his generation from the Father, but not to those which make the Father the supreme God.

Thirdly, what, then, is the metaphysical relation of the Father and Son? At the outset let it be noted that Athanasius has no leaning toward Sabellianism. No stronger protests against the Sabellian position can be found than in his writings. He sharply opposes the doctrine of one personal Being in three modes of revelation and activity. On this point Athanasius is as thoroughly trinitarian as Origen, and he stands squarely in the line of all orthodox Greek theologians. He has been accused of sympathizing with Marcellus, who was a strong defender of the Nicene creed, but lapsed into a complete Sabellian doctrine. There is no ground for the charge. Marcellus was separated from Athanasius in his whole metaphysics. He was not an Origenist; he declared Origen to be the source of the whole Arian heresy. He opposed the Origenistic doctrine of generation and subordination, and held to the absoluteness of the Logos. When Athanasius came to understand the real position of Marcellus he disowned him, and his earnest plea against the Sabellian doctrine in the fourth Oration seems to have been directed especially against Marcellus himself, though his name is not mentioned. The truth is that Marcellus held a type of doctrine that was gaining ground in the West, and his chief sympathizers were in that quarter. Sabellianism had its origin on Greek soil, but it was wholly rejected by the Origenistic Logos school, which finally triumphed over all monarchian tendencies and remained tenaciously trinitarian to the last; while the Sabellianism of Marcellus reappeared in a disguised form in the Western Latin church in the person of Augustine.

Athanasius, then, held to a trinity of three personal Beings. On this point there was no disagreement between him and Arius. Both stood on common Origenistic ground; both equally opposed Sabellianism. Their differences arose on the question of the nature of the second person. Arius declared him to be a creature; Athanasius declared him to be the true Son of God, of the same generic nature with the Father (hOMOOUSIOS), and therefore not a creature.

That Athanasius did not mean by homoousios one numerical essence or being is not only involved in his whole metaphysics, but is expressly declared in his "Statement of Faith:" "We do not hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him single in essence but not the same in essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son." The charge here is that the Sabellians reduce the Father and Son to mere modes of one being, — a sort of Son-Father, and thus destroy the Son's distinct personal existence. Athanasius could not have distinguished numerical unity of essence from generic unity more pointedly than he did by the terms monoousios and homoousios. He held that the Father and the Son were both divine beings, and hence of the same divine nature; but this is a very different doctrine from the Sabellian, which makes God a single essence, revealing himself in three personal forms. Sabellianism is essentially monistic and pantheistic; it confounds the persons and their acts, reducing them to accidents of one substance. Athanasius was a theist. He held that God is a self-conscious, individual, uni-personal Being. He was equally a monotheist. He believed in "one God, the Father Almighty." Hence he was always careful to distinguish the acts of the Father and the Son as well as their individualities.

Modern writers frequently assume that the Greek Fathers had crude ideas of what personality is, — a curious assumption to make in regard to men who were profoundly versed in the Aristotelian psychology, and whose metaphysical discriminations have formed the warp and woof of theological thought to the present day. I grant, however, that modern theologians have made one psychological discovery which was unknown to Athanasius. He had not learned that "person," as a metaphysical term, may have two meanings, a natural and a non-natural. By it he meant an individual being, or what Mr. Joseph Cook calls derisively a person "in the ordinary Boston sense." It was reserved for Augustine and his successors down to Mr. Cook to confound all valid laws of thought by asserting that "person" may mean one thing in common speech and a very different thing in Christian theology.

But if Athanasius held to three persons in the strict sense, how did he save himself from tritheism? I answer: In the same way as his predecessors had done before him, by the doctrine of one supreme cause. Here again Athanasius is a pure Origenist. The Origenistic doctrine of generation and subordination solved for him, as for all the Greek Fathers, the mystery of the divine unity as related to the divine trinity. The Son as begotten of the Father is a derived being, and so cannot be a separate or foreign deity. This is the point of the varied illustrations which Athanasius employs in setting forth his view, such as fountain and stream, sun and ray, king and image, parent and child. Some of these comparisons are capable of a Sabellian sense, if the object of Athanasius in using them is not understood; and in recent theology they have been thus misinterpreted. But they were intended to illustrate the community of nature of the Father and the Son, not numerical oneness. This is evident from those illustrations which cannot admit any such construction. Take the case of parent and child which Athanasius uses so frequently. Since the child is the offspring of the parent he is of the same generic nature (hOMOOUSIOS); as such, he is not foreign or exterior to the parent, but interior and proper to him, and so vice versa the parent is interior to the child. Athanasius represents a father (first Oration, 26) as replying to the question whence his child came: "He is not from without, but from myself, proper and similar to my essence, not become mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am." So, he adds, the Son is interior and proper to the Father. This doctrine of the interiorness or coinherence of the Son in the Father has been misapprehended by Augustinian theologians. It has been supposed to support strongly the view of numerical unity. But this was not the question at issue. Athanasius was arguing against the Arian doctrine that the Son is a creature, and the illustration of parent and child was applied directly against his Arian opponents: "Let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God that he is simply from the Father." The argument assumes the fundamental postulate of the Platonic dualism and transcendence,— that the created is exterior and foreign to the uncreated. If the Son is a creature, he is foreign to the Father, like all other creatures; but if he is a true Son, of the Father's essence, he cannot be foreign or exterior, and hence cannot be a creature. As a child is generically in his parent and the parent in the child, so the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; and it is to support this argument that Athanasius appeals so frequently to Christ's words: "That ye may know that I am in the Father and the Father in me." "I and my Father are one." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

In this connection further light is shed upon the meaning of the term homoousios, as used by Athanasius. He applies it continually to human persons, as belonging to one human race, that is, in a generic sense. How then can it be assumed that, in applying it to the Son of God, he uses it in a totally different sense, especially when the divine relationship is being directly compared with the human, and no hint is given that the meaning is changed? But we are not left to conjecture. Athanasius himself explains his meaning in one clear passage, not to speak of others: "The sense of 'offspring' and 'coessential' (hOMOOUSIOS) is one, and whoso considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers him also as coessential." If this passage by itself were of doubtful interpretation, the context sets all doubt at rest, for Athanasius is showing that the Semi-Arian doctrine of "likeness in essence" (hOMOIOUSIOS) is not in necessary disagreement with the homoousian doctrine, since it allows that the Son is the true offspring of the Father. But it is impossible to interpret "likeness in essence" as implying numerical unity. It would seem unnecessary to pursue this point further; but so ingrained in modern theology is the view that the Nicene Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity involves a numerical unity of essence, that I propose a few additional considerations.

First, if Athanasius had meant by homoousios "numerically one in essence," he would not have distinguished it, as he did, from MONOOUSIOS and TAUTOOUSIOS, for this is the very point of the difference in these terms, as Athanasius himself shows, defining homoousios as meaning "sameness in likeness," in contrast with a simple unity. Further, the fact that Athanasius made such common use of the term hOMOIOS (like) as expressing his own faith, and that he was ready to accept hOMOIOUSIOS as a synonym for hOMOOUSIOS, if properly explained, seems wholly conclusive. But, still further, such a use of the word would have been altogether new in its history. Everywhere in Greek literature homoousios means generic likeness or sameness. Aristotle calls the stars hOMOOUSIOI. Plotinus uses the same term for souls, when arguing that they are divine and immortal. There is no evidence that any Greek Father ever gave the word any different meaning. Gregory of Nyssa calls not only "human souls," but also " corruptible bodies," homoousia. Chrysostom describes Eve as homoousios with Adam. [Gregory, Contra Eunomium, vii. 5; Chrysostom, Homil. in Genes, xvi.]

There is one more consideration that goes to the root of the whole matter. The assumption of numerical unity of essence involves another assumption, viz., that, in the case of the Trinity,
singleness of essence exists with a plurality of persons. But this breaks down a fundamental law of logic and psychology. Essence is the sum of the qualities of a being. Person is a being with certain qualities which constitute its essence. Essence and person then must be coincident. They cannot be separated. The distinction between them is purely logical and subjective. To assume a separation in fact, or that one may be singular and the other plural, is to confound the subjective with the objective, and create a metaphysical contradiction.

[While I must dissent entirely from the interpretation of Principal Robertson and Cardinal Newman in vol. iv. of the Nicene Fathers, I wish to express my admiration of the candor of both these critics in allowing that their view involves what is self-contradictory to the human understanding. But does not such an admission stamp the interpretation itself as false? Certainly Athanasius was not conscious of holding a self-contradictory doctrine, and he was a keen logician.]

The Greek Fathers were never guilty of such a confusion. They were too well versed in the Aristotelian logic. The question was never even raised until the fifth century, in the compromise of Chalcedon. All through the earlier trinitarian and christological controversies the coincidence of nature and person was accepted on all sides as axiomatic. On this ground Origen and his school called the three persons three essences, meaning that each person has his own individual qualities. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, a devoted adherent of the Nicene creed, was led to his theory of two persons in Christ, or of two real Christs, by assuming that if there were two complete natures, divine and human, two persons must result. The same assumption led the Monophysites to their theory of "one nature," since Christ was one person. There is not the slightest evidence that any Greek Father before Theodoret held any other opinion. The Cappadocian Athanasian school stood firmly on it. That Athanasius himself should have developed a new metaphysics on this point, so as to change the whole character of trinitarian doctrine, without leaving a ripple on the surface of ecclesiastical history, is inconceivable.

But the fact may be brought up that, while Origen called three persons three essences, Athanasius and his followers refused to do so. The explanation is simple. It was the result of a linguistic evolution, such as is common to all language. The theological terminology of the Greek Fathers was Aristotelian. Aristotle distinguished two kinds of essence. By "first essence" he meant a concrete being or thing. By "second essence" he meant the "form" or idea, or, in Platonic language, the universal, the genus or species, which is the basis of all "first essences" or individual things. These distinctions underlie the whole Greek theology. But they are brought out explicitly and in Aristotelian form by the later scholastic Athanasians, Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus. When Origen called the Son an "essence" he meant "first essence," that is, a concrete being or real person. But when discussion arose in the Nicene period over the question of the relation of nature to person, and especially concerning the use of hUPOSTASIS for person, as distinguished from OUSIA, the term OUSIA became restricted in meaning to the "second" sense of Aristotle, — the universal, generic, or abstract sense; and such was the common meaning of it in the later Greek Fathers. Gregory of Nyssa and also John of Damascus define OUSIA as KOINON, that is, what is common or generic in contrast with the individual (hUPOSTASIS). Such is the use of it by Athanasius. Hence he again and again employs the Platonic and Aristotelian names for the generic or universal (EIDOS MORFH), as synonyms for OUSIA. No evidence could be clearer. According to Athanasius the divine essence or form or idea is individualized and personalized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are thus united in a metaphysical and transcendental unity, and separated from all created beings? This is distinctly set forth by John of Damascus: "Essence does not exist by itself, but is seen in persons." It is true that Athanasius sometimes uses the term qeos as a synonym for OUSIA, but he often adds the abstract, QEIOTHS, in explanation, and the context always shows this to be his meaning. This usage is explained by Gregory of Nyssa in the treatise EK TWN KOINWN ENNOIWN, when he says that if the name QEOS signified a person, three persons would signify three gods, but since it denotes OUSIA, there is one Divinity. It cannot be too distinctly declared that the Greek theologians from Athanasius on are philosophically Platonico-Aristotelians. With them all, the idea or universal has concrete existence only in individual beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are such individuals (hUPOSTASEIS). The unity of the three is not concrete or numerical but metaphysical or generic. It is easy now to see why Athanasius declined to say "three essences," and yet did not hesitate to say "three hypostases" or beings. The failure to recognize this linguistic change in the use of "essence," after the time of Origen, has perhaps contributed more than anything else to the opinion that Athanasius departed radically from Origen's view. But it was in fact a mere change of terminology, not one of theological position.

The Athanasian Trinitarianism is seen in its completest form in the Cappadocian theologians, Basil and the two Gregories. The idea has recently been broached that these men formed a Neo-Nicene school, falling away from the homoousianism of Athanasius to the older homoiousianism of Origen. This theory rests on the assumption that Athanasius himself was not an Origenist. But, as we have seen, Athanasius had no quarrel with the genuine homoiousianism of Origen. Homoios was the word oftenest on his own lips. His great conflict was with the Arian Heterousians. He held out the olive branch of peace to the Semi-Arians; and the Cappadocians were his devoted helpers in the reunion that was finally accomplished. Basil was his personal friend. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's younger brother and disciple, became the acknowledged head of the Nicene party. Strange would it be if these men misunderstood the theological position of their great leader. But there is no evidence of it in their voluminous writings. Their doctrinal watch-words are the same. They contend against Arianism and Sabellianism alike, defending the old Trinitarianism with the old metaphysics of generation, derivation, and subordination. It is true they were ardent Origenists, but Athanasius himself had for Origen only words of praise. In one respect only can we detect a change. The Cappadocians were the schoolmen of the Greek Fathers. They introduced a more precise metaphysical treatment of theological themes; but the substance and even form of their doctrine is thoroughly Athanasian.

To conclude: The words of Harnack on this closing chapter of the Greek Trinitarianism can be truthfully applied to its whole history: "In reality under the cover of the hOMOOUSIOS men indeed continued in the Orient in a kind of homoiousianism, which is to this day orthodox in all their churches." Carlyle once voiced the traditional conception of the Nicene theology when he declared that the whole controversy was about a diphthong. In fact, it was not a question of a diphthong, but of an alpha privative. hOMOIOS versus ANOMOIOS was the real issue. It was Augustine and the Latin Church that changed the focus of debate, and made the diphthong a heresy, by giving homoousios a new meaning, and adding filioque to the creed. It is no wonder that a schism followed between the two churches which has continued to this day. The idea is prevalent that this schism rests on slight theological grounds. The very contrary is the truth. The addition of filioque to the Nicene creed was a radical overturning of the whole structure. It broke down its monotheism; it reduced generation and sonship to a metaphor; it turned three personal beings into one being revealing himself in tri-personal form; it changed the mediating Logos into absolute Deity. Such changes are revolutionary. No compromise was possible, or ever will be. The schism is complete and final.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here